Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:52, 19 January 2008

Adult-child sex

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Misplaced Pages contributors. Misplaced Pages has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

• Articles for deletion/Adult-child sex
• Articles for deletion/Adult-child sex (2nd nomination)

Adult-child sex (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

POV fork created by a pro-pedophile advocate in the middle of a redirect deletion discussion which was in favour of deletion. I don't care if the page is deleted or redirected to child sexual abuse but this POV fork has created nothing but controversy from day 1. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:27, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment -- When it was created (about 4-5 months ago), it was a POV article. The content has been markedly improved since then. We can't decide to delete the current article because it was created by the wrong editor with bad content. The original creator is banned; The content has been reworked extensively. Compare the first version of this article to the current one and see. --SSBohio 21:55, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment - This is true. When the user that started this article did so, it was just a stub, and the article has grown extensively since. Besides, the assertion made by SqueakBox that that user was a pro-pedophile advocate has not been corroborated. Furthermore, despite the above claim to the contrary, there has never been consensus to redirect or delete. If the quality of the article is at question, there's plenty of opportunities to improve it. ~ Homologeo (talk) 20:37, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment - As for the POV fork accusation, this issue has been discussed many times. "Adult-child sex" (ACS) deals with sexual interactions between an adult and a child, both in the present and throughout history, presenting the contemporary widely-accepted view of this phenomenon, opposing modern viewpoints, and what perspectives existed in the past. Merging or redirecting to "Child sexual abuse" (CSA) would not work because that article deals almost exclusively with the contemporary popular medical and legal description of CSA. Likewise, it is inappropriate to discuss ACS in "Pedophilia," because that article focuses on the contemporary medical definition of a mental disorder or paraphilia. A pedophile is defined as someone who is attracted to prepubescent children, and these is no part of the definition that states this person has to engage in ACS in order to be assigned this label. Besides, a pedophile is attracted to only one type of children (prepubescent), so the article on pedophilia cannot be used to discuss ACS in general terms. Finally, it has been established that pedophiles are, by far, not the only adults that engage in ACS. For these reasons, "Adult-child sex" cannot be merged or redirected to either "Child sexual abuse" or "Pedophilia." ~ Homologeo (talk) 20:37, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

• Concern about fair procedure.: Homologeo, why are you adding this detailed statement of your opinion at the top of the page, above and ahead of extensive discussion by others over the last two days? The entire discussion has been a debate on the points you're adding here. You added your comment out of sequence, posted at the top to get "special attention". It reads like a vote, but is not stated it as a vote. (Your shorter comment above, that is a reply to another user, that's different.) But your long comment here is a position statement not in reply to anything other than the initial nomination, with two days of activity intervening. In the interests of fairness of debate and to all the others who have been working on this, I request that you move your general comment to the bottom of the page, where others are posting theirs. Thank you. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 21:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

*Redirect to Pedophilia - covers the same topic. Mostlyharmless (talk) 20:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment - Except that it doesn't cover the same topic. Adult-child sex is a broader topic than pedophilia, encompassing both pedophile and non-pedophile instances, including cultures and times where there was no conception of pedophilia. --SSBohio 21:55, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment - Well put. For further explanation of why these two topics are different, please see my comment above. ~ Homologeo (talk) 20:42, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. There have been 15 to 20 proposals for delete/merge/redirect before, none of them successfully reaching a consensus. To echo SSB, "Involved Wikipedians and impartial admins have seen no consensus for such a redirection." --TlatoSMD (talk) 20:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Let's not play "nominate until the consensus goes my way" per WP:POINT - the last nom was only 3 months ago and the reasoning is the same as before. Cited and notable topic different from pedophilia and too large to be merged into that article anyway. --Strothra (talk) 20:42, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Nothing of the sort going on here. The first afd did not vote overwhelmingly for keep, indeed the redirects and deletes between them were much larger. Since thenm the article has poroduced nothing but controversy with a small group resisting any change hook anbd dagger. its standard practice to nominate controversial articles more than once, Daniel Brandt was nominated 14 times before deletion and that isnt a record. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:52, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment Does that mean that you intend to nominate the article until it is deleted? --Strothra (talk) 21:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Well I hope it will be deleted this time. If it isnt my long term strategy would not involve multiple afds, from my current perspective. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:12, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
        • Comment I hate to butt in, but by saying you have a strategy, aren't you indicating your goal is to get the article deleted one way or another, regardless of concensus? Pharmboy (talk) 21:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
          • Comment...And even if it didn't, that response is still indicative of an intent to disrupt constructive editing of an article. We are supposed to be building an encyclopedia, not deconstructing one. See, WP:POINT and WP:GAME. --Strothra (talk) 21:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
            • Comment It treats Misplaced Pages like a magic eight ball; Simply shake it enough times and it will eventually produce the answer you want. --SSBohio 22:02, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete oir redirect as suggested by the nominator. It could be redirected to either child sexual abuse or pedophilia. Pol64 (talk) 20:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment Sourcing my above statement on prior requests for delete/merge/redirect (in addition to those RfD two links in that box above), see here, here, here, and here. Both the nominator and Pol64 have just today been warned by several admins of likely getting blocked for another attempt to unilterally re-direct as they have tried numerous times even way beyond the many official requests I have just linked. --TlatoSMD (talk) 20:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. This is utterly crazy. About 85% of this article's lifespan has been taken up by some attempt to nonconsensually purge, merge or delete, in which SqueakBox has been instrumental. digitalemotion 20:52, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment That is clearly not true. There were 4 independent attempts by 4 separate editors to resolve this issue and I was only involved int he first of those 4. The reason we need another afd is because so many editors oppose this article's existence. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:55, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment. SqueakBox, you have been ever present in the attempt to undermine sourced material in this article. I am not aware of what you refer to when you mention four independent attempts to resolve some issue, but even if this is true, it would certainly undermine the sheer ferocity with which you have attempted to destroy this article. This has at times reached the level of claiming that opposing editors must either be sockpuppets or pedophile activists, thus elevating your opinion above theirs.
    • May I also add that the current article is nothing like it was a while ago, and nothing like the draft proposed by TlatoSMD. SqueakBox's constant, unjustified blanking of sourced material actually betters his case for deletion. digitalemotion 21:02, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep You don't have to like something to understand it is notable, real, and reasonable to have an article on it. Pharmboy (talk) 20:59, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Well sourced, and surprisingly written from a NPOV. Wildthing61476 (talk) 21:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm curious as to how the "almost universally accepted view" part of the child sexual abuse section being approximately 1/3 the size of the other view conforms to WP:NPOV. - Revolving Bugbear 21:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. The article remains NPOV. In fact, there is even greater reason for keeping, as this article does not include historical and cross-cultural perspectives - for which there is a wealth of information that has already been copied to previous versions of this very article. The nominator's motivations anger me greatly. I have lost count of how many times he has acted rudely on talk pages, lost arguments, lost consensus and gone ahead with his Orwelian plans regardless. There is also something else that I think he has done right here which angers me even more, but this I shall not disclose this due to a lack of (absolute) certainty. GrooV (talk) 21:19, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
• delete or make a redirect. Only paedos call it this. Wiki is accused of backing paedos and giving them a platform enough without this being here. We must guard what's left of our reputation over these issues. Also, obvious POV fork. Merkinsmum 21:24, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

The redirect could not be to CSA, but to pedophilia. Merkinsmum 21:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Careful there, you do realize you called everyone who has said to keep this article a pedophile? Wildthing61476 (talk) 21:28, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that comment could have consisted of more tact. --Strothra (talk) 21:30, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

The article is no defense of pedophilia. Read it for yourselves. Whenever I get involved in these things, I see the most vile innuendoes cast about. A little more civility would be nice. --SSBohio 22:02, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment - Misplaced Pages is not concerned with what "paedos" call something or not, but rather a neutral account of each and every prevalent subject, however controversial it is. This will include a full appreciation of the fact that sexual contact between adults and children has a history and cross-cultural spectrum of variation that spans wildly beyond the current medical conception of child sexual abuse, however valid that conception indeed is. GrooV (talk) 21:33, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Given a chance to actually have some meaningful editing, this could be a very decent article with lots of references to historical and scholarly works. There are at least two drafts in userspace attempting to do just that since the mainspace article is subject to POV revert wars. Appears to be a WP:POINT nomination after losing the latest round of "let's gut the article." Pairadox (talk) 21:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Make that 3 drafts. --TlatoSMD (talk) 21:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
• (ec) Comment. Already in the short time this AfD has been open, there have been multiple personal attacks and showing of bad faith. This nomination is nothing even close to WP:POINT. This is not a campaign by one editor, as will be seen as additional comments are entered here over the next few days. This comment is not my !vote, I am writing this separately to note that it is wrong by policy and by spirit to attack someone for bringing up a question for community consideration. Please stop discussing editors and focus on the question of the AfD. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 21:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Obvious content fork. Not a single section of the article stands on its own; all major sections point to a main article on the subject of that section elsewhere. The minimal amounts of extra content available in this article all belong elsewhere. Rray (talk) 21:42, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment The issue of a purported "POV fork" has been addressed a number of times within the proposals I have linked, all ending with no consensus for delete/merge/redirect, and where even ten people or more said that the current article for Child Sexual Abuse is a "POV fork" as it should limit itself exclusively to legal aspects. The reason why the official article currently looks as poor as it does (especially in comparison to the existing drafts) is the same as why those people who keep removing copious, well-sourced material have been reprimanded today by admins. --TlatoSMD (talk) 21:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

  Comment This is similar to a draft essay I am working on (and just used this example to add to) called Don't Bludgeon The Process. Pharmboy (talk) 21:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

  I think the word you're looking for is "bludgeon", not "bludgen". Rray (talk) 22:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

  Yes, thank you. Pharmboy (talk) 22:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

  • • Comment Just because an issue has been discussed before doesn't mean it's been solved. Just because no consensus was reached last time doesn't mean that a consensus can't be reached this time. I see no good reason to keep this article, as the material can and should be covered in other articles related to the subject. Rray (talk) 21:56, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Comment This might not be a record particularly on AfD, but it certainly is a good candidate for record on total propososals and polls to delete/merge/redirect, especially when viewed in comparison to this article's age. Do you really have to succeed the 14 AfD polls for Daniel Brandt with 15 to 20 proposals to remove the material one way or another in just a few weeks? Just how much bloody noses of defeat does it take to warrant referring to WP:POINT? Also Rray, I repeat that the current bad shape of the article is due to those editors that have been warned of getting blocked today. --TlatoSMD (talk) 22:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
        • Comment It seems as if this is the 2nd nomination for deletion, which doesn't seem excessive to me. Consensus can change over time, and three months seems to be a reasonable amount of time to wait to bring the matter up again. The editors being warned about being blocked seems irrelevant to me as to whether or not this article should be kept. The material in the article, and the material that could reasonably expect to be added to the article, can and should all be covered in the other articles on this subject. So the article has no reason to exist. Rray (talk) 22:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
          • Comment As I said, this might only be the second AfD, but several dozen of people reached no consensus in 15 to 20 delete/merge/redirect proposal polls to favor any of those proposed options. --TlatoSMD (talk) 22:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Its been nowhere near several dozen. Please stop propagating this falsehood unless you are willing to back it mup with diffs. When I last counted about a week ago there were 17 people involved (not including admins in their role as admins or blocked users), you'd need ato prove at least twice that number were involved or you are simply exagerrasting. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Comment Well, not referring to the people only taking part here, I count in the proposal polls I linked to User:Chick_Bowen, User:SqueakBox, User:BlindEagle, User:CheNuevara, User:Ssbohio, User:Colonel_Warden, User:Jmh123, User:Speciate, User:A.Z., User:Grutness, User:VanTucky, User:Will_Beback, User:Jtrainor, User:Lara_bran, User:Chris_Buckey, User:Flyer22, User:Eleland, User:Roman_Czyborra, User:Serpent's_Choice, User:Rocket000, User:Rocksanddirt, User:Enrico_Dirac, User:TlatoSMD (see User_talk:TlatoSMD), User:WJBscribe, User:Ronnotel, User:Jeeny, User:Mr.Z-man, User:J_Milburn, User:After_Midnight, User:Melsaran, User:WikiLeon, User:Picaroon, User:Gracenotes, User:Mtmelendez, User:Pol64, User:Anchoress, User:The_Scarlet_Letter, User:Mangojuice, User:XDanielx, User:Thebainer, User:Wikidudeman, User:GroomingVictim, User:Strichmann, User:Penwhale, User:Homologeo, User:HolokittyNX, User:Digital_Emotion, User:Albert_Wincentz, User:Nihiltres, User:Photouploaded, User:Deus_Ex_Machina, User:VigilancePrime, User:Jack-A-Roe, User:Aditya_Kabir, User:Souljaman, User:Seicer, User:ThuranX, User:Nakon. That's 58 people, only tweo editors short of 5 dozen. --TlatoSMD (talk) 00:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
        • • • I read what you wrote previously, but that doesn't change the fact that there is support for deletion, and this is the appropriate venue at which to discuss deletion. Rray (talk) 23:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Section Break

• Speedy Keep as bad-faith nomination (was Snowball Keep) -- Here We Go 'Round the Mulberry Bush all over again. This was sent for deletion only in November. It was closed as a Keep. SqueakBox took the result to deletion review. The review endorsed the close as keep. Unable to succeed that way, those favoring deletion attempted to merge this article into another. They were so persistent against consesnsus that the article required admin intervention. Then, the article was moved to adult-older teen sex, again without consensus. Another admin moved it back, for which trouble he has been threatened (by the nom) with being taken to arbitration. I want to see a consensus solution here, but this sort of activity makes seeing such a solution very difficult. --SSBohio 21:55, 17 January 2008 (UTC) -- Updated my Keep !vote. Also, see this version for a better idea of what the article looked like before decimation. --SSBohio 01:01, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

!Votes after posting to AN/I

• Keep. per Pairadox. Mostlyharmless (talk) 22:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete this nonsensical POV fork. Enough with the POINTy refactoring and moving it around; just nuke it with extreme prejudice. krimpet✽ 01:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per krimpet. Viridae 01:54, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per krimpet -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 01:57, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - per Krimpet. It's just a euphemistic fork of another article. Merge into the two other main articles, at best case - Alison 02:00, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Its a POV-fork with no content that relates only to this article - each section has a see also link to the main article on the topic, why do we need a page like this one that only summarizes other pages? Also, can people knock off the comments? Make your argument in your entry and don't badger people with an opposing opinion. Obviously a touchy subject, so some extra care is warranted. 02:02, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment -- Granting your premise, the article would be keepable as one written in summary style. However, it's important to also consider what this article says about how the various concepts relate to each other. To overlook that is to conclude that we have no need of an article on the peanut butter and jelly sandwich since we already have articles on peanut butter, jelly, and white bread. Now I've gone & made myself hungry! --SSBohio 14:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - POV fork. Addhoc (talk) 02:02, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
• redirect This should be a redirect to the proposed articcle, other than that, it can be deleted. Yahel Guhan 02:07, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. After having looked at the article, I see no reason why any relevant references could not be merged elsewhere and this page deleted and then redirected accordingly. I know that the previous discussion closed as a "keep" back in October, but I also acknowledge that consensus can change and this article just feels redundant with Pedophilia, Child sexual abuse, and Age disparity in sexual relationships. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 03:35, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment -- I could actually see a solid case to merge this article with age disparity in sexual relationships. I'm not sure why that hasn't come up before, or, if it has, how I missed it. This may be the breakthrough needed to move the process forward. Thanks! --SSBohio 14:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Per Krimpet and Grand Roi. There has been plenty of time for this article to be merged/refactored/integrated elsewhere appropriately but it hasn't happened and it will, apparently, not happen. We have other articles that cover this topic; this one exists to highlight a minority point of view. Mangojuice 04:42, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

• True its given enough time but did not develop due to whatever reason. Topic is very sensitive under law, and should be treated somewhat like WP:BLP, unless in good shape its better to delete. Neutrality is highly called for, and the article can be developed in user space and recreated after DRV. Currently merging/redirecting to neutral title Age disparity in sexual relationships would be appropriate, since in contrast, same-aged-minors-sex (no age disparity) is permitted under law. Again the merging, rather than just redirect, would be met with resistance by opposing users. Voiced axix (talk) 05:33, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. I don't think I can put it better than LGRDC. Generally speaking, the project is best served when different points of view are forced to joust in the marketplace of ideas. The existing articles he cited are the appropriate place for that. Xymmax (talk) 05:26, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. POV fork, designed to confuse the difference between adult-child sex and adult-minor sex for toxic progagand purposes. See here for extensive background on where this is coming from. Herostratus (talk) 05:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

That's quite an accusation. Do you have evidence of the propaganda purposes of me and the other editors? Also, I just reviewed the Wikisposure article you cite. It appears to be an attempt to galvanize on-wiki reaction by opponents of the pedophiles it identifies rather than (as implied above) an attempt by pedophiles to organize against this project. Wouldn't a site listing Wikipedians who are supposedly pedophiles be a form of attack site? --SSBohio 14:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - POV fork. Tiptoety 05:44, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - Adds nothing that is not already present in the 3 main articles it draws from. If there is something special about this topic framed in this way, then it has not been properly communicated in this article; I don't think that this is the case, so I think this article should go. Antelan 05:49, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete While the behaviour of SqueakBox and Pol64 and a couple of like-minded people has been downright disgraceful in the last few days and the nomination is in bad faith, my personal opinion is that on content grounds they're largely correct that the original topic is a better source and some of the content/scope of this one risks bringing Misplaced Pages into disrepute. Orderinchaos 05:52, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as POV fork per above. Eusebeus (talk) 15:23, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

• STRONG KEEP see below - BTW, as this was a very clearly Bad Faith nomination, a Crusade against the article and well-referenced topic, and this question has been Asked-and-Answered already, not once but twice. VigilancePrime (talk) 06:07, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

NOTE: Page is vastly improved, expanded, formatted, and even referenced since the AfD began (again). Of course, the same justification for keep exists... WP:Notability, WP:Reliable Sources, and WP:Verifiability are all met, and met well, as evidenced by the 50+ references and 40,406 bytes article size. The structure of the article also was overhauled to hopefully allow for more and better expansion as well as help push a NPOV (section on abuse, section on non-abuse, section on history, section on modern, etc...). VigilancePrime (talk) 08:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete POV fork of the obvious kind. EconomicsGuy (talk) 08:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC) _{Full disclosure: Saw this on AN/I.}
• Delete all POV forks. Neıl ☎ 10:46, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep A PoV fork is by definition the same content with a different spin. This is substantially different content to child sexual abuse that looks at various contexts in an anthropological and sociological light, were the content merged, it would be unmerged soon after, and given that it is a notable topic, studied and researched, there is no valid criterion for deletion.

In addition, I am largely against second and further nominations without substantial reason. Wearing down a page's defenders is not how content ought to be dictated, especially in controversial areas 69.210.45.157 (talk) 11:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep No POV forks is a very strong argument, but I don't think this is a POV fork. There is overlap, certainly, as there has been a lot published about the question weather or not all Child-adult sex is child sexual abuse. (or adult-minor sex, or any of those forms). The fact that there is academic discussion "do all cases of 'a' involve 'b'?" means that 'a' is not the same thing as 'b'. In this case, do all cases of adult child sex involve child sexual abuse. My personal opinion on the matter (that is, it should be regarded child sexual abuse in all cases I can think off) is not quite relevant to the discussion on the question of deletion. The scopes of the two articles do differ, and therefor this is not a POV fork. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:00, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

That's not the entirety of what a POV fork is, see WP:CFORK. Maybe it would also be accurate to describe this as a platform for WP:SOAP. Most POV forks needn't/usually don't contain entirely the same subject matter as the main article, but what is contained in them is decided by what propounds a point of view, with selective parts of the main subject or tangents of it covered without the correct context of the majority view/other views in the main article. Merkinsmum 12:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

And how does "Adult-child sex" prevent the correct context from being used, or how does it avoid a neutral point of view (which is at the definition of a POV fork)? And how is it a soapbox? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep at all costs. I can't exactly call myself a fan or practitioner, but this has been done throughout history and in many present cultures. The first time I heard of CSA was in the seventies/early eighties, so unless this is a magical discovery, why all the delete votes? And what is biased about the current version? Were all these people born after the eighties, when discussion and research of this became tabu? Karla Lindstrom 13:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Well-put. If this topic is only covered as child sexual abuse, then no information about how adult-child sex fit into Western or non-Western cultures prior to the advent of the child sexual abuse paradigm would be topical. No information about how non-Western societies, in the modern era, view the subject differently than Western ones. To do so says that we, as a project, not only believe that adult-child sex is abusive to the child, but that we specifically require that everyone reading or editing here never look at it from historical, anthropological, sociological, or any other view aside from the moral issue. --SSBohio 14:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I collapsed some sections of extended discussion because for some reason a few editors think its necessary to respond to every delete vote with the same arguments, slightly rewritten and a little bit longer than last time. Consider the possibility that people just disagree with you. 15:26, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Note that it are not only those who argue to keep the article that have been doing this. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:50, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Avruch, I understand how well-intended your edits were; What I had trouble with was the edits' instructing editors not to edit in those sections. Also, the first collapsed section (AFAIK) is the only section in which RRay or I have discussed whether I could characterize my !vote as Speedy Keep. I don't see where we've been repeating it elsewhere. However, I've considered the possibility that you disagree with me about that, and that's ok. --SSBohio 16:01, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

• STRONG KEEP Comment Adult-child sex is the term preferred today by David Finkelhor, most-quoted North-American scientific authority on CSA research since three decades. Not only is it annoying that this article keeps getting new propositions to delete/merge/redirect pretty much any other day where the people doing so obviously never learn, even constantly trying to do so without any consensus or even without polls, so it's no surpise the article currenty looks the way it does, this topic is just too distinct from other existing articles such as CSA, Age of Consent, paedophilia, child sexuality, or others. It's clearly distinct from Age of Consent because that's nothing but a mostly entirely arbitrary line beyond any actual link to age-structurized attractions such as nepiophilia, paedophilia, ephebophilia, and has also certainly no link to any biological or mental developing processes, that some jurisdictions draw because of cultural, aka moral, issues. It's clearly distinct from paedophilia because that only concerns the attraction of an adult, which according to all legitimate available empiric peer-reviewed studies and statistics (of which I can quote you many) is the least probable cause for Adult-child sex while 97-99 percent of cases are clearly situational offences (lack of availability of an adult partner, social incompetence, curiosity, decreased inhibition or inability to tell the difference such as because of drugs) or due to sadism. It's clearly distinct from child sexuality because attraction towards adults is only one of many within polymorphous-perverse sexuality of children, if any. And it's clearly distinct from CSA that's mostly a very recent legal, and moral, interpretation or construct. In our former polls, one person also made a distinction in that they saw a difference between a behavior and one of its potential outcomes which they called abuse aka mental harm. This is (or at least it's supposed to be, if we'd be getting anywhere instead of constant edit warring) an anthropological, ethological, and biosocial article about a specific form of what to empiric, multi-disciplinarian, peer-reviewed scientific studies (which I can also quote at a high number, while of course nobody claims that's what the majority of cases would be like) seems often mutually enjoyed and agreed upon behavior that is observed on any social level in society, in any era of human history, in any human culture known to mankind, and in most higher vertebrate species on this planet. Even though many legal bans have been put up against this behavior in the history of the West since kurganization, and the behavior increasingly since the Age of Enlightenment inherited the numinous status of ethnocentrically most condescended and feared sexuality from same-sex activities, the ethnocentric and chronocentric label of CSA is entirely alien and unkown to most of those situations.--TlatoSMD (talk) 15:54, 18 January 2008 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TlatoSMD (talk • contribs) Note that this is this users second vote. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:53, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I thought everybody is now having another vote now that we're over most arguments? It's what it looks like now that I'm coming back after a few hours of sleep. I'm sorry if I've violated any rules thereby. --TlatoSMD (talk) 15:54, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment I'm sorry, corrected it now. This is really getting confusing with people commenting on other people's posts, editing, changing, and moving their posts around, and other people once in a while setting breaks where there had none been before. (Also I'd like to note that Martijn was so quick he saw I'd forgot about signing within 10 seconds or so.) --TlatoSMD (talk) 16:04, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Correction of fact. TlatoSMD wrote: Adult-child sex is the term preferred today by David Finkelhor, most-quoted North-American scientific authority on CSA research since three decades. -- That is incorrect. The link here is to a USA Today article, and it shows the pitfalls of citing popular media on scientific topics. The article may have included an accurate quote, but it's out of context and certainly does not indicate that the term preferred by Finkelhor. David Finkelhor is the Director of the Crimes against Children Research Center. His 150 or so publications use the term "child sexual abuse" extensively, as an example, his book, Sourcebook on Child Sexual Abuse. If anyone wants to research further to confirm this, here are a couple links to his organization with some of his publications online for free: Sexual Abuse Papers, Publications directory. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 18:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Finkelhor does not use the term "child sexual abuse" when writing about adult-child sex from an objective perspective, as seen in Chapter 2 of Child Sexual Abuse: New Theory and Research and his response to a paper by Robert Bauserman, among other places. This is identical to Misplaced Pages's current usage. AnotherSolipsist (talk) 20:26, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Those pages are filled with cherry-picked out-of-context quotes, assembled by a website advocating a fringe activist view. And even in those excerpts, it shows that he uses the term to show it's harmful, for example: "Epidemiological studies show that adult-child sexual contact is a predictor of later depression, suicidal behavior, dissociative disorders, alcohol and drug abuse and sexual problems even when other noxious background factors are controlled for (Browne and Finkelhor, 1986)." He acknowledges that some few children are not harmed by the experience, but states that the risk of harm is "very high". --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 06:12, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep I don't agree this is a POV fork. Seems reasonable as an article in its own right. --John (talk) 17:01, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete with extreme prejudice. Misplaced Pages doesn't need a pro-pedophilia POV fork. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 17:52, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. Why would I and 13 other users have voted for this, if it were in anyway biased towards a pedophilia (or any highly outspoken) agenda? Could you point to what exactly you see as pro-pedophile when the article is named and written to provide a non theoretical base for a subject once adressed only by a theory, that of CSA? Have you never read publications such as the Encyclopedia of Homosexuality, which take a similar, cool, nonhysterical and nonmedicalised perspective when dealing with all subjects sexual? GrooV (talk) 18:51, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
    • I don't know why you (and others) voted for this despite its pro-pedophilia stance, but I can think of two possible explanations: 1) you are pro-pedophilia, and 2) you don't think that the article is pro-pedophilia. I'm going to assume that the latter is the correct explanation. The bottom line is this: adult-child sex is a sneaky way to paint child sexual abuse and pedophilia in a more positive light. And no, I have not read the Encyclopedia of Homosexuality and I don't intend to, because I already know what pedophilia is. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 21:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
      • I sincerely hope you are not trying to equate homosexuality with paedophilia in your above remark. :| Orderinchaos 06:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
        • I'm not. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 09:05, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
          • No worries. Just making sure (there was about three ways to read your previous sentence). Orderinchaos 16:11, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
• Comment I admit that merging into Age disparity in sexual relationships is the most sensible merge suggestion so far, however it would be odd to make up one section that'd be longer than the rest of the article as all 3 incomplete drafts have a size around 40-50 kB. Furthermore, I'd like to repeat what I've said elsewhere, which is that I have said from day 1 of my involvement that babies and toddlers ought not be muddled up with pre-pubescents and pre-adolescents, and none of them should be muddled up with adolescents. Adult-child sex started out as relating to pre-pubescents and pre-adolescents, not to babies, toddlers, or adolescents, as you can see in the further advanced drafts, so there is no need to call upon unwarranted "muddling" any age lines. Third, I'd like to announce that the nicks of a number of people who have posted here are listed as "identified pedophiles" here, obviously because the people maintaining that list didn't like their posts and edits made here or elsewhere on Misplaced Pages. As they are even listing this very AfD on their site under Updates, everybody posting here has the chance of finding his nick, sometimes even his personal street address and photos on that site, branded as an "identified pedophile" if those people don't like their posts. I'm worried this might be affecting the outcome, and also the behavior of people here. --TlatoSMD (talk) 18:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

EDIT: I have now also been informed that the site I, as did others way up here, linked to contains spyware. --TlatoSMD (talk) 19:24, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

There's no spyware on those pages, that website runs the same software as Misplaced Pages - it even has the MediaWiki.org link on the bottom of the page. It's nothing but html, css and javascript. No way could that page install spyware on your computer when you simply view the text. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 19:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

What effect would one presume this kind of organised networking has on the final outcome of a vote such as this? GrooV (talk) 19:31, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I think any evidence of organised networking offsite and online would need to be brought here, certainly no evidence at wikiexposure of that going on but it may be happening in boy and girl chat forums. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:50, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I also cannot see any direct evidence of parachuting, but from my limited experience of the forums concerned, Boy Chat and Girl Chat are both open Pedophile forums (any encouragement would be noticed and reported) whilst Wikisposure is allied to some sort of private linear style messageboard.

What amuses me about the wikisposure page is that it claims that the article under discussion was created by Boy Chat, which is a well known messageboard for pedophiles, and not an organisation. The guy who created the article (User:A.Z.) is a ninteen-year-old gay Brazilian male with a long history of non-pedophile-related participation at Misplaced Pages. GrooV (talk) 20:15, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. Paedophilia is unrelated to most cases of adult-child sex (see Child sexual abuse#Pedophilia). Child sexual abuse is a legal and social contruct, and much of anthropological, zoological, and academic material that Adult-child sex should cover would not befit the Child sexual abuse article. AnotherSolipsist (talk) 20:26, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. I'm commenting not to argue with the above !vote, but only to indicate that this statement is incorrect: "Paedophilia is unrelated to most cases of adult-child sex (see Child sexual abuse#Pedophilia)." That is not what the linked article states, and it's not what the science shows. Substituting the word "some" for the word "most" would make the statement more accurate, though vague. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 21:31, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment. Odd you didn't take me up on it when I first stated so above. For those scientific empiric peer-reviewed studies that actually make a difference between an attraction and a behavior, and that actually acknowledge there can be different motivations for what is legally labeled as CSA, regularly find only 1-3, maxbe 5% of cases are due to paedophilia, see for instance Freund & Costell 1971; Quinsey, Steinman, Bergesen & Holmes 1975; Howells 1981; Abel, Mittleman & Becker 1985; Knight et al. 1985; Wolter 1985; Brongersma 1990; Freund 1991; Freund & Watson 1991; McConaghy 1993; Lautmann 1994; Hall, Hirschman & Oliver 1995; Ward et al. 1995; Hoffmann 1996; Seikowski 1999. Don't Abel 2001 me on this, for her popular STOP CHILD ABUSE NOW! book is a largely fictional work, and Abel defines "paedophilia" as a behavior, so lo and behold, she finds that a behavior is the most likely cause for a behavior! As for "denial", those studies are hardly going by self-identification but rather by distinct mental and behavioral patterns, even though self-identification and reports on their own behavior in the case of paedophilia has the strongest correlation of accuracy and factuality with their mental and behavioral patterns as is back-checked by means of independent outside sources (including but not limited to family, friends, acquaintances, co-workers and employers, not least of all the involved children, if any). --TlatoSMD (talk) 08:42, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep it has been mentioned many times that this is a POV fork of something, but I don't see of what. The nomination doesn't mention it, and the way SqueakBox is labeling people pro-pedophile doesn't add any credibility to his claims either.  Grue  20:31, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I have actually decided not to edit some days, because I have gone through this in real life before and do not want to face it again. Really, this is my main objection to the way that this article has been managed. The ad hominem has to stop before someone is "sniffed out" by Wikisposure and gets a brick through their window. GrooV (talk) 21:04, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep per AnotherSolipsist. There is history and interpretation of this category of interpersonal relations which is at least as old as civilization. Whether one has a facile 'like' or dislike' of the subject-matter, any proposal to erase it, or to subsume it under the conceptually different, limited, and recent, social construct of "CSA" is, at best anti-intellectual, and at worst transparently Orwellian. Strichmann (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 21:57, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

lol, see (Category:Pederasty -something going on with my wikilinks) - we have (Category:Pederasty in ancient Greece), Pederasty in the Renaissance etc and so on. There's no shortage or suppression of paedophilia articles and about the history of it - probably there are other categories and subcategories too. Look at them all- hardly Orwellian suppression. But this article consists of cherry-picked ideas designed to forward an implied POV. Several sites have said that wiki is paedo-enabling and some were even banned because they were trying to use Misplaced Pages to pull kids on here.Merkinsmum 23:50, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I realize that this is conceptually difficult to grasp – but you aren't the first, so no need to feel embarrassed. Pedophilia is a label assigned in order to categorize. It says nothing about the two-way interpersonal relationships involved. 'Adult-child sex', on the other hand, constitutes a form of relationship between two individuals. Treating the two concepts as identical would be the equivalent of treating 'the state of being an athlete' and 'the carrying out of a game of tennis' as identical/interchangeable terms.

As for the “paedo-enabling” claim, as you eloquently put it, it is patently clear why websites might be suggesting that...in order to influence the outcome of discussions such as this, to accord with their agenda. No doubt it you were to mention any of those websites names, that would become obvious.Strichmann (talk) 00:24, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep because Google Scholar says there are 294 scientific articles mentioning the term. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 23:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. another editor mentioned this search in reply to my !vote below. I replied there; the gist is that when the word "abuse" is omitted from the Goggle Scholar search for the article title term, the result goes down to only 38 pages. And the Google Scholar search for "child sexual abuse" brings in 35,600 pages. Search URLs and context are in my reply below. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 10:03, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete POV fork. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:05, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Why, when the abuse article would naturally and logically represent the conceptual forkage from the ACS activity itself? Where do you see the POV break from the CSA article? Is it in the title? If so, why? Is it in the material? If so why? There is no doubt that the ACS move brings things further towards a position of favouring the ACS practise itself. But thankfully, this is inherent to establishing a neutral teritory such as this article.
  • Maybe the article would be better described as a NPOV fork? GrooV (talk) 00:15, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

According to your logic it would but if one thinks you are wrong iand that the article should be CSA to describe ACS as a fork would be entirely logical. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:29, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Break 2

After about one day, there have been many votes and arguments put forward, but with a lack of consensus.

The current voting stands at 18 to keep and 21 to delete the article or at least redirect. No one has voted to merge. GrooV (talk) 00:16, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Please note that this not a vote, but a discussion and that decisions are made not based on the number of "votes," but on the merits of the arguments weighed along with Wiki policies. --Strothra (talk) 00:19, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Its truer to say that the decision isn't entirely based on vote counting but it most certainly is included, if it were entirely based on "the merits of the arguments weighed along with Wiki policies" I seriously doubt the article would be here right now. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:26, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Heh, that's a funny spin on the issue, to say that the votes to keep any ACS related issue would flatter the policy justifications. One would think that with the general hysteria in society and all the hushing up over research papers, it would be much the opposite. GrooV (talk) 00:32, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

A few of us have discussed merging/redirecting, depending on if there's anything in the article worth keeping. Oh another place where some of the article's content is already discussed is Animal_sexuality#Sex_between_adults_and_juveniles Merkinsmum 00:43, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

• Mostly already merged... just a comment -- most of the info from this article was merged into child sexual abuse on approximately January 7 by another editor, as part of the prior redirect. Although the redirect was reverted, the merged material was not removed from the other article, as far as I know. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 02:42, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
• AFD is not a vote. A majority of one does not actually imply consensus - in fact it implies a complete absence of it, as users are split on what to do. We don't promote admins with majority+1. Orderinchaos 06:39, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I made it clear in the nomination that I don't oppose merging and redirecting, indeed for me it would be an acceptable solution. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep There's no reason why this article can't be organized in a way that includes sections on many different topics related to this subject. CSA is obviously just one part of ACS. Ospinad (talk) 02:21, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep I do not understand the problem here. Adult-child sex is the bare description of the act. Sex between adults and children. Whether this is abuse or not (and I fervently believe it is, but my personal views on the subject are irrelevant - maybe you should take a leaf out of my book on this one, SqueakBox) is an entirely seperate issue and depends on the culture we are talking about. Right here and now, it is considered abuse. Fair enough, but it wasn't always so. If anything, CSA is a POV fork of ACS, because it's just one way of looking at the issue. It may be the right way, but Misplaced Pages is not meant to judge whether it is or not. That's the whole POINT of NPOV. "Adult-child sex" as a term is not an inherently POV term. "Child sexual abuse" is, because 'abuse' is a subjective term depending on what is considered abuse at the time. DEVS EX MACINA _pray 03:27, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Take a leaf out of your book? How so? My only interest is our neutrality policy, perhaps you would care to take a leaf out of my book as NPOVG is my primary motivation here. Thanks, SqueakBox 04:57, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

No, it isn't. It is a tireless crusade against anything remotely resembling pedophilia, which, granted, is a noble cause, however, it has nothing to do with neutrality, or building an encyclopedia. You have repeatedly accused good-faith editors who were working towards such a neutrality as being "pro-pedophile activists", acted against consensus and are arguably doing anything BUT act in the interests of the neutrality policy. A review of your edits and comments here make this clear. DEVS EX MACINA _pray —Preceding comment was added at 05:56, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Obviously a POV fork. Misplaced Pages already has an article on Pedophilia --RucasHost (talk) 04:48, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. Not a POV fork of other articles. But I would recommend to make a separate article about this kind of sexual behaviot among animals, which is described in scientific literature and even helps survival of certain mammalian species, although I do not have a reference handy.Biophys (talk) 05:20, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Based on the external link Herostratus posted and other comments, I believe some participants have felt coercive pressure and withdrawn their statements.. --SSBohio 06:52, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment And some have been so digusted by that and other tactics of the cabal that they have ceased editing the article out of concern for their safety and fear of being branded pro-pedophile. Pairadox (talk) 07:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I would also point out that I have received a death threat off site but online concerning my edits to these pedophile articles so if this is happening it is happening on all sides. Thanks, SqueakBox 15:42, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment To put this into context, the "death threat" against Squeak literally was the opinion that he "needs fixing". --TlatoSMD (talk) 16:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

• VOTE CHANGE:DELETE - If Squeaky will allow me to change my vote to the vote he is crusading for, and hyper-zealous admins will allow me to say why I am doing so, I would like to Change My Vote from Strong Keep to Strong Delete. The reason: This issue will never be settled. I stand by my earlier factual comments (and all the links that I provided to prove the point). This article will be deleted, it's just a matter of time, and the personal attacks, intimidation, and harrassment are not worth it. Therefore, Strong Delete per WP:STEAM. (Really, it's the only way to end this war. SSB and Pair are correct about it, above.) VigilancePrime (talk) 09:38, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. Article is well sourced currently, the topic is a notable one and there is no concensus for deletion. We should try to work through the differences of opinion on this topic. Capitalistroadster (talk) 06:59, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. per WP:FRINGE, WP:UNDUE, WP:NOR, non-satisfaction of WP:V and WP:N and as POV fork of child sexual abuse and pedophilia.

The title itself is the core issue. As long as the article exists, it will be a magnet for trouble and confusion, because it mixes together separate topics: (1) adults sexually using pre-pubetry children for sex (for example toddlers and very young schoolchildren), and (2) sex between adults and post-puberty adolescents. Joining these different topics under the name "Adult-child sex" obscures the two meanings and implies they are the same, which they are not.

Every mainstream psychology association, child protection organization, governments around the world, and the vast majority of researchers and clinicians agree that all sexual interactions of adults and children is "child sexual abuse", with thousands of references supporting. The fringe term "adult-child sex" appears in only a few sources, and the webpages that quote them, giving the impression of more support for the term than actually exists. Misplaced Pages should not have an article with the title "adult-child sex" because it's misleading original research, and not verifiable. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 08:44, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

This is of course a complete misrepresentation of facts. The vast majority of researchers and clinicians agree the opposite: that adult-child sex is not inherently abusive (in the linguistically correct sense of the term). Before the ACS article was distorted by vested interests, the talk page listed in excess of 100 academic sources confirming that point. There were no scholarly sources listed in support of your misrepresentation, with the vague exception of Finkelhor (who in fact does not support your claim, but concedes that he argues against all adult-child sexual relationships not because they are inherently abusive but based on his (necessarily subjective) personal morality). If there are "thousands of references" supporting your claim in so far as "the majority of researchers and clinicians" are concerned, why were none of them ever presented (despite the request of editors)?

In any event, this discussion is not about the myths surrounding adult-child sexual encounters, but about whether the article is a topic in its own right. The fact that it is an umbrella term for possible interactions between two individuals is self-evident. Concepts such as 'pedophilia', 'pederasty' and 'child sexual abuse' may share some degree of overlap as possible manifestations or constructions of 'adult-child sex', but they are nevertheless separate and distinct.

'Adult-child sex is no more a “POV fork” of 'child sexual abuse' than 'heterosexual sex' would be a POV fork of 'rape'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Strichmann (talk • contribs) 09:51, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Not true, as rape is a minute percentage of heterosexual sex whereas child sexual abuse describes the entirety of adult-child sex. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:04, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

• Strichmann wrote: "'Adult-child sex is no more a “POV fork” of 'child sexual abuse' than 'heterosexual sex' would be a POV fork of 'rape'. " -- an excellent illustration that the title of the article is a problem. The analogy presents the idea is that there is a normal, non-abusive kind of adult-child sex, related to child sexual abuse in the same way as normal non-coercive heterosexual sex relates to rape. That's impossible, since every instance of sex between an adult and a young child is both illegal and harmful to the child. There is no question that's the mainstream view, and that any idea of "normal, healthy sexual relations between an adult and a pre-puberty child" is a far-from-the-mainstream fringe view. There are endless sources and references supporting that distinction. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 10:36, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

• • Comment. I've expounded on the alleged "age muddling" issue further above. The reason why the article currently looks the way it does is least of all due to those people that'd prefer it to stay. As for a "fringe issue", let me quote User:Stevenfruitsmaak above that according alone to Google Scholars "294 scientific articles" use the term Adult-child sex. --TlatoSMD (talk) 09:09, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Context: compare those 294 Google scholar hits to some other searches:

Google scholar search term: "adult-child sex"; total scholar hits = 294 pages (the initial search mentioned above)

Google Scholar search term: "adult-child sex" -abuse; total scholar hits = 38 pages (omitting the word "abuse" from the 294 hits of "Adult-child sex")

Google Scholar search term: "child sexual abuse"; total scholar hits = 35,600 pages

That's two orders of magnitude more pages for "child sexual abuse" than for "adult-child sex", three orders of magnitude greater for "child sexual abuse" when the word "abuse" is omitted from the searches for the term "adult-child sex". In general, Google tests are not reliable for these kinds of decisions, though these are Google Scholar searches so they're a bit better than just web pages. Even so, it's hard to ignore the huge difference, two to three orders of magnitude... supporting that "adult-child sex" is a fringe term. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 09:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

• • • • • Comment. Of course all respectable sources, including the article in debate, must expound on the issue that Adult-child sex is legally and culturally labeled as abuse, so it's no surprise that the figures differ so widely whether you include works with the term "abuse" or not. And even though, as you correctly say, Google mostly catches only a part of available material, especially print material, it still begs the question whether almost 300 scientific peer-reviewed sources are few enough to be glossed over. --TlatoSMD (talk) 09:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
          • I don't think those sources should be glossed over, but they also should not receive undue weight. There are 100 times more Google Scholar hits for "child sexual abuse". You noted also that respectable sources on "adult-child sex" would mention "abuse". So, OK, it's a minority view, and has validity in that context. The way to handle that, per WP:NPOV, is to mention it in the main article child sexual abuse with the appropriate references and due weight. I'm pretty sure there already is information in that article about the term "adult-child sex" that was added around January 7 by another editor. If not, it can be added; but this separate article is a POV fork; for that reason, and the list of other practical and policy reasons I mentioned previously, it should be deleted. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 10:14, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
            • Comment. Jack, with that argument you're getting both ethnocentric, chronocentric, and numinous again, or in other words, you're trying to prescribe morality, which is not what Misplaced Pages is all about. The only way to avoid that is to not put undue weight on those unreliable and therefore, from a standpoint of legitimate science, actually close to irrellevant sources that are ethnocentric, chronocentric, and numinous. These sources in themselves can however be an interesting research matter for social sciences, just as the ethnocentric, chronocentric, and numinous Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Just as with the overwhelming majority of intentional fiction compared to non-fiction when it comes to print (or, for instance, the internet), this a case where affirmative opportunism and howling with the wolves is not necessarily about NPOV. --TlatoSMD (talk) 14:53, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

• TlatoSMD wrote: "unreliable and therefore, from a standpoint of legitimate science, actually close to irrellevant sources that are ethnocentric, chronocentric, and numinous. " -- Are you referring to sources like the American Psychological Association and the National Institutes of Health? The arguing for keeping this POV-fork article on the basis that it's "chronocentric" is clouding the issue. And your closing note in that comment: ", this a case where affirmative opportunism and howling with the wolves is not necessarily about NPOV." -- Of course it's about WP:NPOV, that's the core of the whole project. And that's why WP:NPOV#POV forks are contrary to policy. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 20:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. I stand by what I've said below: There's very good reasons to not apply sophisticated labels such as "empiric", "science", and "research" to such opportunistic "majority" sources that you mention, no matter what fancy degrees their authors might hold, or how positively their careers were influenced by conveniently publishing such strictly affirmative, uncritical material compatible with ethnocentric values. --TlatoSMD (talk) 20:10, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

• An adult using a little child for sexual gratification is abuse, not matter what culture it's in,and whether or not that culture considers it abusive. Should the attitude of the culture about it be presented with references? Sure, but not in a POV fork article. Same with history; just because in the middle ages adults used children for sex routinely does not change the fact that the children were harmed by that. They felt all the fear and pain and suffered later all the same suffering that happens to children today resulting from those acts. That's not chronocentric, it's just history, the history of child sexual abuse. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 20:52, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Strichman writes 'The vast majority of researchers and clinicians agree the opposite: that adult-child sex is not inherently abusive'- well that's not been in anything I have previously read on the subject- which has all said that it is very abusive. I also disagree that sex with someone in early adolescence and late childhood shouldn't be dealt with in the same article- it's the same thing, it's still a crime and abusive taking advantage of someone who can't give full consent.Merkinsmum 13:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure where he's reading these researches- Paidika or something like that?Merkinsmum 14:00, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Jack, since the article itself says that adult-child sex is a form of abuse, how is it appropriate to exclude the term "abuse" when searching? Also, might I suggest taking such an in-depth discussion to talk:adult-child sex? --SSBohio 14:35, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

SSBohio,... Ospinad brought up a related point a couple comments below here. I've replied there at time stamp 19:34, 19 January 2008 (UTC). --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 19:37, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment. The peer-reviewed scientific material that Strichmann talked about can be found here. As you can see, only two of those sources happened to be also, among other editions, be published in Paidika, which was indeed one peer-reviewed scientific journal as you can see in its own article. The first edition of the one source (Bleibtreu-Ehrenberg 1985/88) was in the sociological journal Der Monat founded by Melvin J. Lasky (on that photo in his article, you can even see him with an issue of that journal) and by that time had as editor-in-chief Michael Naumann, then also publisher of Die Zeit and today running for SPD mayor of Hamburg to be elected in a few weeks from now. The other source (Sandfort 1994) was one of many follow-up reports on Sandfort's governmentally funded long-term research study. --TlatoSMD (talk) 14:53, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

What about the innumerable peer reviewed researches saying adult child sex is damaging? None or hardly any of that is in this article. Which is one of the many reasons why it is a misleading POV fork. Merkinsmum 16:56, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

• The list of sources TlatoSMD posted may look impressive, but with a few hours of work many times more that many can be found showing that those sources are WP:FRINGE views. Those that show historical or cultural considerations can be added to a history and cultures section in child sexual abuse, a large topic with plenty of room for sources showing all its dimensions without making a separate POV fork article. Also, many of those sources are in German and can't be used without reliable translations; and, if those sources are added to any article they can't just be dumped in in groups, they'll need to be vetted individually according to whatever text they support. Just listing sources at this time does not support the keeping of the POV fork article. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 19:52, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

To Jack: You are assuming that with this search: "adult-child sex" -abuse that you are finding only the sites that don't describe adult-child sex as abuse. But if a site said something like, "adult-child sex is not abuse" then you would be eliminating that one too. In other words, that search will eliminate "adult-child sex is not abuse" as well as "adult-child sex is abuse". For example, "adult-child sex" -"child sexual abuse" doesn't eliminate nearly as many. Ospinad (talk) 16:21, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

• Google is a digression and was not the basis of my !vote, but I'll address your point for clarity. The purpose of excluding the term "abuse" was only to find out, how many pages use the term "adult-child sex" in a context that does not involve a discussion of "abuse". But Google tests are not a good method, so I didn't mention Google, until someone replied to my post by bringing it up. So then I showed the other searches to indicate the overwhelmingly huge mainstream view that all adult-child sex is child sexual abuse. Regarding taking it to the talk page, that's not needed for now. The article should be deleted because it's a WP:FRINGE WP:POVFORK, that violates WP:NPOV and WP:V. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 19:37, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. Jack, now that you've been refuted on trying to justify your position on the modern equivalents of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion by calling them "science", you're trying to steamroller the poll into your direction by means of just as unreliable "popular opinion" that is mostly only relevant for social sciences looking into these kinds of mass-scale, aggressive public paranoias. --TlatoSMD (talk) 20:03, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

• TlatoSMD, I have absolutely no clue what you mean by that. I didn't respond at all to your mention of Protocols of the Elders of Zion - I found it off-topic and simply ignored it. So when you say I called it science, that's your own creation. And regarding your comment that mainstream sources are "unreliable "popular opinion" that is mostly only relevant for social sciences looking into these kinds of mass-scale, aggressive public paranoias" - wow, how thousands of mainstream sources can all be paranoid, that's another comment I don't understand, and it seems to me you are directly supporting the description of "adult-child sex" as WP:FRINGE by setting it off from mainstream consensus science, by calling mainstream science "mass-scale, aggressive public paranoias". --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 20:28, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. I repeat that there's a number of good reasons not to call "science" what you cite as "mainstream sources" as these are, to quote Feierman and echo many other scientists and scholars, nothing more than representations of unreliable, numinous, local "narrow ethnocentric preconceptions of our times". As for thousands of individuals exhibiting paranoid, absolutely horrified and disgusted thought and behavior, that's a culture for you. Religious scientists researching into the Numinous, such as Mircea Eliade or Rudolf Otto, or Enlightenment legal scholars and philosophers such as Karl Ferdinand Hommel could have a field day when examining the only thinly veiled irrational ethnocentric reactions of horror, disgust, and paranoia in sources such as Finkelhor or the APA when it comes to Adult-child sex and desire for it. Referring to those mentioned authorities, Bleibtreu-Ehrenberg did so in 1978, 1985/88, 1986, 1989 among other occasions, she as a founding member and member on the board of the German Society for Sociological Sexology, as well as the head of the stately-funded West-German AIDS research commission came to a conclusion similar to that of Dannecker & Reiche 1974 focusing exclusively on homophobia, finding that the most convenient and common trigger of public, often aggressive and even violent paranoias in the history and present of the Western world is sexual deviance, whose common symbolic, allegedly "purest and most outrageous form" formerly was same-sex activities and desire for them, since the Age of Enlightenment increasingly replaced by child-adult sexual interactions and desire for them, and that most other ethnocentric prejudices towards specific other out-groups (she mentions, among others, racism, anti-Semitism, the Medieval witch-hunts, prejudice and discrimination towards physically or mentally disabled...) are most likely mere disguised derivations of that. She thus referred to homophobia and similar reactions to child-adult sexual interactions and desire for them as "resembling an obsessive-compulsive neurotic disorder". --TlatoSMD (talk) 20:59, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment. Merkinsmum, as for "majorities", see what I said above about the lack of reliability of ethnocentric, chronocentric, and numinous sources. There's very good reasons to not apply sophisticated labels such as "empiric", "science", and "research" to such opportunistic "majority" sources that you mention, no matter what fancy degrees their authors might hold, or how positively their careers were influenced by conveniently publishing such strictly affirmative, uncritical material compatible with ethnocentric values. Also I'd like to repeat what Strichmann said, for months people failed to bring up any of your "innumerable" unreliable sources when confronted with differing peer-reviewed scientific sources in a three-digit range even though they were repeatedly asked about such. --TlatoSMD (talk) 17:08, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I can see a total lack of consensus here. Hence the article should not be deleted.Biophys (talk) 17:52, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Is that a vote. There are still several days to go though I agree that right now there is no consensus, for some of is even that is a step forward given the history of the article. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:04, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. The topic is icky to most sensibilities, but there are plenty of good articles on this site about topics that offend us. This article seems to describe--in a reasonably encyclopedic, NPOV way--something distinct from sexual abuse or pedophilia. Wouldn't make sense to merge. Also calling another editor "pro-pedophile advocate" strikes me as less than civil.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 18:17, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  • It wasn't my descriptionm but that of the admin who indefinitely blocked him so I think it is a fair comment, and far from not being civil it is a description of a POV that has been pushed endlessly on wikipedia. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:26, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment. Squeak, not only is there a number of different views on A. Z.'s block verifiable by a number of internal Misplaced Pages links and debates I don't have handy right now, you also called "pro-pedophile" on any single person that ever dared not subjecting to your uneducated guesses. --TlatoSMD (talk) 18:46, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. I have not even read this article, and don't terribly wish to. (I find the topic uninteresting at best and basically -- in the words of the previous commenter -- "icky.") Therefore I have no opinion about whether the current writing of this article is that WP needs or whether it conforms to our standards. However, I do very strongly feel that some such article is needed -- unless we are to succumb completely to the ethnocentrism of our own period -- and therefore, while the article might conceivably need rewriting -- it should not be deleted. The topic is not necessarily the same as child sexual abuse or pedophilia, although it could be twisted that way by proponents or opponents.
• There were people outside of our period to whom versions of such concepts made sense. For example, in Pheadrus 249a, Plato has Socrates express the opinion that, after death, souls are not able to regain their spirituality readily, "unless it's someone who innocently loved wisdom or loved a boy in wisdom." This is my own translation, but you can look up that page of the original at The Perseus Project. If you click the "Greek" link on their page (and perhaps struggle a bit to get the Greek to render acceptably on your screen), you'll find that the word that Perseus's translator has decorously (and, in my opinion, in shameful dereliction of honesty) translated as "lover" is in fact "παιδεραστήσαντος" (paiderastêsantos) -- the participle of the verb meaning to love a boy erotically. Click the link on the Greek word for parsing and a link to a full dictionary definition.
• Therefore, my thoughts are the following:
  • I personally do not approve of "abusing" children and am prepared to take strong action to prevent it.
  • I personally think that an adult having an erotic experience with an underage person almost inevitably, in almost all cases, constitutes "abuse."
  • I am not personally interested in erotic experiences with children.
  • I do not think that Plato meant to recommend "abusing" children as a spiritually regenerating exercise.
  • I do not imagine that my personal moral sense is infallible or necessarily superior to Plato's.
  • I imagine that Plato was speaking in a way that made sense within his culture (even though that culture may, like ours, have allowed abuses).
  • For all I know, there were other cultures besides Plato's in which some such behavior was permitted or even regarded as good.
• So, I think that intellectual honesty requires us have such an article, distinguishing that phenomenon from "sexual abuse" of children -- written to the usual standards, especially including NPOV, and with obvious cautions strongly expressed. William P. Coleman (talk) 21:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. There are several articles that address the above topics in extensive depth: Pederasty, Pederasty in ancient Greece, Philosophy of Greek pederasty, Pederasty in the modern world, Platonic love, and more. The article under nomination for deletion is not needed to cover those topics any further. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 21:52, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

• AfD debates (Society topics)
• AfD debates